English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Sir: The recent article “Concordance of nasal swabs and nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of respiratory viruses by direct immunofluorescence” is very interesting1. Del Pozo et al. concluded that “there is considerable agreement in the detection of respiratory viruses by DFA between samples obtained by NS and NPS, but not enough to recommend a change in the sampling method”1. It is apparently that NS sample cannot replace NPA sample. This is shown in many publications2,3. According to a previous report by Stensballe et al., “using NS samples was associated with a 27-31% reduction in sensitivity compared with NPA specimens2”. However, the important issue to be considered is the cost effectiveness. According to the study by Stensballe et al., the NS sample seems to be more cost effective and practicable in sample collection from the patients2.

Hisopado nasal y nasofaríngeo en la detección de virus respiratorios